On 13 October 2014 15:43, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: Well, some people might say "just information processing", and that is like > using some god to *explain* everything, instead of trying to formulate the > problem. > This is doubly so in the use of the term information, which is a word > which almost automatically leads to a confusion between the first person > notion (like in: "I listen to the information on the radio and was > shocked") and the third person notion (like in Shannon theory, or Quantum > information theory, etc. >
I agree. He says at one point "When we introspect and seem to find that ghostly thing — awareness, consciousness, the way green looks or pain feels — our cognitive machinery is accessing internal models and those models are providing information that is wrong." Note that he can't avoid saying "when WE introspect" and "OUR cognitive machinery". What is taken for granted here is *particularity*. He can't help resorting to a tacit "god's-eye" perspective that is used, without justification, to pick out whatever is under discussion and ascribe it to "we" and "our". He might, I suppose, wish to protest that this is just "folk language" and that there is, in the ultimate analysis, no "picking out" of the first-person "we" and "our". This is perhaps what is behind the attempt to deploy "illusion" as a term-of-art. Unfortunately it is merely a term-of-obfuscation, as it unable to conceal the frank contradiction inherent in ascribing a perceptual position to something you claim does not exist. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
